Artificial intelligence (AI) looks to be the most disruptive class of technologies in driving digital business forward during the next decade. Yet, even amongst the most tech-savvy professionals, there is divided-opinion over what AI can or cannot be defined as, and what it can and can't achieve. The most exciting aspect of applying AI in the legal profession lies in the automation of repetitive and straightforward tasks, like eDiscovery or judicial bill review, while enabling human experts to improve results beyond what machines or people could do alone. This combination allows for enhanced productivity while driving significant time and resource savings. This piece will clarify what AI is, how it's being used today, and how it can improve legal operations -- now and in the future.

The Machinery Directive is the core piece of EU legislation for the mechanical engineering industry: it promotes the free movement of machinery within the Internal Market, while setting out the'Essential Health and Safety Requirements' to be observed when placing a machine on the market for the first time. The mechanical engineering companies Orgalim represents really value this Directive: in addition to ensuring a high level of safety for employees and end users, it has provided a stable legal environment for businesses since it came into force over a decade ago. Particularly for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), this stability is invaluable. In the last year or two, however, the European Commission has been exploring the possibility of reviewing the Directive – prompted primarily by new developments in technologies like artificial intelligence (AI). AI has climbed up the political agenda in recent years, reflecting public concerns that this technology is somehow different; that, in the most dramatic scenarios, systems deploying AI could start to act autonomously and provoke new, unmanageable dangers.

We present an unified methodology for representation and development of dialectical proof procedures in both abstract and assumption-based argumentation based on the notions of legal environments and dispute derivation. A legal environment specifies the legal moves of the dispute parties while a dispute derivation describes the procedure structure. A key insight of this paper is that the opponent moves determine the soundness of a dispute while its completeness depends on the proponent moves.